You could move to Washington state. They are ending their emissions testing program in 2020.
Well, I enjoyed the post, RT. Scrap is up a bit at around 7 cents a lb. The highest I’ve seen was 14 cents. The lowest was 3 cents.
Those little Toyota trucks are hard to beat.
Someone scrapped a Ford Taurus or something today (drove it in) with excellent 15 inch tires on it. It’s a shame they’ll go to waste. The company is afraid of liability issues. Probably justified in today’s sue happy world.
See, driving can be fun once in a while.
I think this is the kind of place they are planning on around here. Race track and luxury garage stalls for their exotics. I hope they have tours 'cause that’s the only way I’ll see the place with homes around the 1 mil mark. I think. Still getting permits.
Edit: Sheesh, they’re in Brainerd, MN at the Brainerd International Speedway and I didn’t even know it.
Speaking of emissions testing, I was surprised to see this in the Rockauto newsletter this month talking about Washington and how testing is probably on its way out. Just had to cut and paste since links don’t work well with them it seems. This is most of the comment but not all.
"Emissions testing of passenger vehicles will end on December 31, 2019 in Washington state. It ends on April 1st in Ontario. Emissions testing was no longer required in 26 North Carolina counties starting December 1, 2018. British Columbia, Canada’s “AirCare” passenger vehicle testing ended in 2014. Alaska ended emissions testing in 2012.
There are multiple uplifting stories here. Air quality has improved! Fewer vehicles fail emissions testing! Government programs that have outlived their usefulness are eliminated! Car manufacturers design and build great vehicles! Use the money you no longer have to spend on testing fees to buy your own OBD II scan tool and check for emissions and other trouble codes whenever you want, from the comfort of your own garage!
Since 1996, cars have been required to have OBD II computers with standardized access ports. That probably marked the beginning of the end for government mandated emissions testing. The number of jurisdictions that still require emissions tests will probably continue to drop over the coming years.
Many emissions testing stations gradually stopped using dynamometers and exhaust probes and simply began plugging scan tools into OBD II ports. Why buy and maintain a bunch of expensive tools to test declining numbers of pre-1996 cars? The potential impact of a relatively small number of old cars on air pollution was statistically insignificant. Many states gradually stopped testing pre-OBD II cars. . . ."
Maryland tests emissions be scanning for OBD codes when the system is present. We still have to get tested every two years. I do live in the fourth largest metro area in the US, and it is still a good idea in this area. Eastern and Western Maryland do not have emissions testing since they are not densely populated. Vehicles built between 1975 and 1996 that are tested get gas cap and tail pipe testing.
Here in upstate NY, emissions testing for 1996+ vehicles has been OBD II only for as long as I can remember
I’m for testing. The first time I failed pointed me to a broken choke, the second time to a leaky carburetor, the third to a holey muffler. It was the incentive I needed to fix it, from which I benefited, not just our air. I passed with numbers low enough to pass if it were a 2019 car, not just a 1987 pickup.
So that’s why the other place in the neighborhood charges $40 for pre-1996 cars, $20 for after. Saigon Express is $16, cheapest in town. Unfortunately that occasionally means a wait.
There’s testing only in Bernalillo county in NM.
So am I. Because the fact is if you’re driving around in a car that doesn’t meet current emissions standards you’re polluting the air that I need to breathe.
WA is ending the emission check program because the air quality now meets or exceeds federal standards and is expected to remain so. Emissions testing in WA started in the “non-attainment” areas because air quality did not meet those standards. Several years ago the emissions program was scheduled to end but air quality had not yet met the mandated levels so the program was extended.
Auto emissions testing is one of a great many programs designed and needed to clean up the air, and the results are obvious. Last Christmas I was visiting my mother in Los Angeles. I stood on her back patio admiring the view of the San Gabriel Mountains. As a toddler I remember standing on the same patio and barely being able to see the outline of those mountains.
I’m for emissions testing too. Whether it’s needed or not depends on the air quality in the area and to some extent that depends on the weather patterns and geography. It’s probably the case that Washington State – in the areas where it has higher population densities – there’s enough wind to blow the bad air away, and few low lying basins that trap air pollution. Not the case in the SF Bay Area. My main complaint is that Calif does little in the way of helping the owner – diy’er or not — figure out what’s causing the problem when the car doesn’t pass. For example they could provide the average & range of test data for that make/model/year/engine; they have it all, but they don’t provide it to the owner. If they wanted to add some more reporting requirements, they could also provide what repairs were successful or not successful at addressing each out of spec problem. The other thing I don’t like about Calif emissions program is they don’t allow enough time for an owner to address the problem and take a re-test if it doesn’t pass the first test. I don’t see how any of that helps makes the air cleaner, it just aggravates the car owners.
I remember visiting Disneyland in the '50s, how smoggy it was. I moved to Pasadena in '71, remember days when my eyes watered, when looking across the street was difficult, when I couldn’t see the San Gabriels at all. Throw in a fire (such as '77’s) and it was a portent of Hell. I had to sweep the ash off the porch daily.
George, I live in 2 locations that do not have emissions testing. I have no experience with it, but I’m curious. Please help me understand what you mean by the quote above.
What happens when one does not pass the first test (Is there more than one test?) and how could car owners be given more time after failing a test?
What happens to the car/car owner when they fail that first test and are not given more time?
Thanks!
CSA
I was a school kid in '77, I remember that fire. They didn’t close school but we weren’t allowed outside for recess and lunch and parents were advised that it was ok to keep kids home from school. None of the schools I went to had indoor eating areas and all the classroom doors opened directly outside.
In WA if your car does not pass emissions you can not renew the registration. I think that’s what George is referring to. I can’t tell you how many times someone came to the shop at 2pm needing emissions diag and repair, pleading the case that I needed to get their car in now because the registration expired that same day and they didn’t want to drive with expired tags.
I never had any sympathy. The state sent out renewal notices 60 days ahead, plenty of time to get the car inspected and repaired if needed.
I receive vehicle registration renewal notices 60 days before expiration. An emission test certificate is good for 90 days (same in CA) so I could test my car tomorrow for registration renewal in May.
There is always that customer that needs an emission test right away so he can drive to the DMV and renew the registration because they didn’t want to let go of their money until the last minute.
Here in WA they are good for 1 year
Calif emissions requires the owner pass the test by a certain date, after which the owner loses their right to drive the car on the public roads, as they cannot renew their registration until the they pass the test. So if you fail the first test, and don’t have time to fix the car and take the second test by the due date, you cannot legally drive the car to the testing site for the second test. Not without going to a dmv office and obtaining a one day or short term exception, for a healthy fee of course. And it might require 4-6 hours of waiting in line. And you can’t drive the car to the dmv office to get the exception either, so you have to get to the dmv office some other way.
There’s no reason why you can’t take the first test several weeks before the due date of course. The problem with that is sometimes the state legistlature has trouble passing a budget which delays the paperwork you need to take the test. One time I got the paperwork only 4 days before the due date. And many people pass the test time after time for years on the first try, so they feel no need to allow time for a repair and second test.
The way it should work imo, if the owner takes the first test by the due date and fails, they should automatically get a 6 week extension of their current registration to do the repairs & take the second test.
So the question is: Why does Calif purposely make it difficult for folks who want clean air and want their car to pass, and instead tell them they can’t legally drive their car to a repair shop or to the testing site for a second test?
1 Like
Now that you brought up fires, we visited a relative in Washington a little while after Mt. St. Helens blew up. Now that was pollution. They said it was like a major snow storm with the ash all over. Needed to shovel the streets and sidewalks just like a Minnesota blizzard. I’ve still got a bag of the stuff we collected from their lawn. So I guess it’s not just cars that need emissions inspections.
Everybody calls my trailblazer a truck, it is not a truck, my F250 is a truck.
I don’t follow your logic . . .
You’re notified WELL ahead of time that your car is due for a smog
If you’re notified a few months ahead of time, but you neglect to take it for a smog test until it’s literally the due date, then you fail . . . that sounds like you should have planned better
It’s kind of like when you habitually cut it too close when you leave the house for work, so that you literally arrive at 8:00AM, for example
Everything goes well, for years
Then one day you leave the house same time as always, expecting to show up at work literally at 8:00AM
But this time you’re slowed down because of a traffic pile-up, and now you’re late
Many bosses would say “You should have left early enough to allow for traffic pile-ups”
I’m with @asemaster on this one . . . the world doesn’t revolve around that one customer who did’t plan well.
2 Likes
IMO the objective should be for the state to make it as convenient as possible for the owner to get the car to pass the test. A car that passes the test is what brings about clean air for the people of the state. There’s no downside to the state providing the flexibility I describe above. The state still get their money for the registration fees and the car still gets tested until it passes and is proven to be a non-polluter. I don’t see any reason for the state to punish car owners just for the sake of proving it has the power to do so. And as I mentioned above, the state sometimes isn’t diligent about delivering the paperwork well ahead of the due date. The owner is not allowed to test the car until the paperwork arrives.